At a recent channeling session, which consisted of chanting "obamaobamaobama" in a Curly Howard voice until I reached nirvana, I am possessed by the spirit of Harold Stassen, so what the hell, I guess I'll run too...

Way too early for me to care. I think the media are now pushing the "eternal campaign" and doing their old "horserace" rubbish.

I don't get the sense of it. It appeals to the partisan fringes, I suppose, but marketers at the networks and newspapers should figure if they have any sense that 85% of Americans don't give a flying crap in a bucket that "currently, Romney is 2 points ahead of Hillary in the polls, but there is 'movement' by Edwards".

It's still a year and a a few months away before the 1st friggin' delegate is to be won!

There are far bigger issues now. With exploding debt, healthcare, globalization's failure, lawyers and courts ossifying America's ability to compete, energy crisis, the world about as forboding and dangerous as it was last time in the late 1930s.

Actually, I want it over with already. We have to endure this for about 23 more months until election day 2008!

I had 1010 Wins news radio on yesterday while cleaning my fridge and Hillary's annoucement was the big news. They kept calling it an "Historic" first. I thought, "What about Libby Dole or Pat Something (Shaefer?) from CO?" Do your homework 1010 Wins! They ran so much of her annoucement speech that she received the equivalent of 4 campaign ads per hour. Not to mention their "man on the stree" response to the big news which was surprisingly - it's Union Sq NYC - not good as most claimed Obama-mania.

Since it wasn't a surprise, my only reaction to Hillary was it sounded as if she was kicking off another "Listening tour" and her line about health care makes me think she's going to go for a single payer system again. Other wise, same schlock in that same "heeeeey, I want to hear from yoooooou" tone that Hillary is practicing to tone down her natural finger wagging shrill.

Richardson has years of experience as a government executive, dealing with foreign relations, handling energy issues, and working with congresssmen. Oh, and he's very knowledgeable about Mexico.

So, in terms of general experience doing the sorts of things Presidents have to do, he's light-years ahead of Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, or John Edwards. In terms of specific expertise on the critical issues of general foreign relations, energy supply, and the Mexican border, he's similarly light-years ahead of Clinton, Obama, and Edwards.

What a screwed-up country we're in, where Richardson isn't running far ahead of those three combined.

"I had 1010 Wins news radio on yesterday while cleaning my fridge and Hillary's annoucement was the big news. They kept calling it an "Historic" first. I thought, "What about Libby Dole or Pat Something (Shaefer?) from CO?" Do your homework 1010 Wins!"

Perhaps the concern is that if they weren't able to concentrate on Obama's being black and Hillary's being a woman, they'd actually have to discuss things that matter, such as their views, which would be the kiss of death?

Obama, in particular, trades on being a blank canvas onto which people project their own aspirations. If he starts placing his own views into the public domain, that can only detract from the allure.

I have a somewhat different suggestion. Think about it. If there's a Supreme Court vacancy in the next two years, the nominee won't get a hearing unless they are demonstrably pro-Roe, but on the other hand, they won't get nominated if they're obviously left wing, and pissing off the left buys you a certain amount of credibility on that front. Bush's primary concern appears to be that the nominee doesn't take too restricted a view of the executive's power to fight the war on terror. Now, who do we know who fits that bill, and also has the other (that is, important) qualifications? ;)

I'm not saying it's ideal, but "ideal" ceased to be a practical possibility last November. So let's at least pick someone who deserves to be there, who obviously won't be a disaster, and who seems to be growing in the Hugo Black sense rather than the David Souter sense.

If you are a hardcore neocon that still thinks we can 'win' Iraq then you might not buy this. Of course I would only answer that if you still think at this late date that we will somehow gain a decisive military victory and make Iraq the land of peace and freedom that Dick Cheney predicted it would be, then clearly what you are injecting yourself with is pretty strong stuff.

But if you've come to the realization that the only way we will get out of Iraq is via a negotiated political solution then here is the case:

A few weeks ago, Richardson negotiated a temporary cease-fire in Darfur. Why didn't Bush or the State Department?

Either because

1. They can't because they don't have any diplomats with Richardson's skill, or

2. They didn't because they really don't give a flying leap about Darfur.

either way, the cease fire is the latest in a string of diplomatic successes that Bill Richardson has had going back 20 years (he didn't get appointed U.N. ambassador for nothing-- he's negotiated successfully with a lot of tough characters, including some who 'officially' we had nothing to do with.

Now, if we are stuck having to negotiate our way out of Iraq (and it isn't just I who predict that we will) then who would you rather have at the table: a seasoned professional diplomat like Bill Richardson, or a neophyte whose only experience has been giving grand speeches in the U.S. Senate, like a majority of the other candidates (in both parties)?

And that says nothing of how low our standing in the world in general has fallen. Even if we caught a country, say, Iran-- red-handed tomorrow with nukes, 1. no one would believe us, and 2. even if they did, they might cheer but whatever we did, we'd be doing it alone.

For this reason, our next President must be a diplomat (which George W. Bush is honestly the worst diplomat I can ever remember in the White House.) And the only proven diplomat running is Bill Richardson.

Yes, Richardson has the best credentials on the Democratic side. But he isn't going anywhere - he just isn't telegenic enough to get the nomination.

As to negotiating our way out of Iraq, who are the parties to the negotiations? Eli keeps suggesting that the answer to the situation in Iraq is negotiation, but doesn't ever tell us who would be negotiating for whom, and how the various parties can bind the non-state actors here. Obviously, the U.S. and the democratically elected government of Iraq would be involved in any negotiations. But who else? And how do they force their side to keep the bargain?

Yes, Richards has the resume, but no charisma (on tv). Apparently, he is great in person, though.

Telegenic is probably the right word.

On second thought, I think Hillary will be rather easy to tank:

1. Attack her head-on;2. Use negative ads to up/maintain her negatives3. Since she wants to hold the center, attack her substantively from the far left and the far right4. Explain away everything she says as proof of her ruthless ambition, political calculation, emotional detachment, and lack of ethics.5. Since she'd prefer to talk about domestic issues to younger women and African-Americans, attack her on foreign policy issues that married couples, older males, and middle-class whites care about

Thing is, probably no one will do this, because it will seem impolite.

Even though I'm a hawk, I've been an admirer of Richardson for years. And for the silliest of reasons - Years ago I became friendly with a woman who worked for Richardson and respected him tremendously. She once allowed herself to be traded for hostages during a negotiation Richardson conducted. Have I been unduly influenced by the opinion of someone I liked and with whom I found much in common? Perhaps, but isn't that, in essence, exactly how the Iowa Caucus works?

BTW, while Richardson may not be handsome, I like the way he looks well enough. And I suspect the non-buffed majority of Americans will not be put off by him.

A few weeks ago, Richardson negotiated a temporary cease-fire in Darfur. Why didn't Bush or the State Department? Either because

1. They can't because they don't have any diplomats with Richardson's skill, or

2. They didn't because they really don't give a flying leap about Darfur.

Or, of course:

3. Unlike Richardson, Bush doesn't need to pull empty political stunts to get his name in the papers.

Yes, Richardson got both sides to sign a piece of paper promising a 60-day cease fire. What he couldn't do is get them to obey it.

Simply put, if you consider Richardson's Darfur jaunt a "success" then Iraq has been a "success" as well -- the Iraqi factions have, after all, signed many pieces of paper agreeing to play nice and not blow stuff up anymore. It is easy to get people to sign an agreement they know they can't be held to, and Sudan's leader made it clear to Richardson that no outside fofces would be allowed in to enforce the peace.

Maybe you need to post a big spreadsheet with all the candidates, their avatars (Clinton as Oprah, Brownback as Billy Graham), favorite buzz words, issues, silly or not. It would be of great service to the Dems interested in the primary.